I love the ToO!If only I could see it from Your perspective... the beauty and the grace of Your architecture.

Joined: Wed Apr 20, 2011 11:08 am

Posts: 1056Age: 21

Cash: 0.00 Bank: 1,506.59

I use NKJV, because it's what my dad and my pastor and some of my friends use. I used to use the NIV, but recently switched. I also read the ESV, which I have on my Kindle. But I really don't care which version I use, as long as it's faithful to the original manuscripts and isn't too dynamically translated (aka The Message).

_________________"Jesus is far greater a Savior than you are a sinner." — Steve Camp"The Christian life is not a piece of heaven on earth, / but bless God! we get the peace of heaven on earth! / ... Some say God doesn't want you to suffer, but where they saw that?/ We don't pray for a lighter cross, but a stronger back!" — KB, "Brand New""When you heard a story 'bout da Hero dying for da villain?" — Andy Mineo, "One Sixteen"

I love the ToO!To know that God is in control is one thing, but to believe that truth, to stand on that truth, to live by that truth is completely different.

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:45 pm

Posts: 1171Gender:

Cash: 43.10 Bank: 800.00

ESV is the one I use most of the time. I've used NIV1984 a lot in the past, so although I've switched to ESV, I still use NIV1984 a fair amount. My girl's discipleship group uses strictly KJV, so I'm using that version more and more as well.

I mostly use NIV 1984, but I also use ESV, and NKJV. NIV 1984 is what I use for all of my memory passages for Youth Group/Bible Bee/school, I like to read the ESV version sometimes, and my dad really likes NKJV, so sometimes if there's a bible laying around, it's in that version. I'm not super picky about the version I use, as long as it's not overly translated.

What do you know about the Translation Process? what do you know about Hebrew/Greek and the Septuagint?

Main Problems with Translations:Trinity - (Changing wording to refute or downplay the fact that God is three persons in one) Jesus Christ, The SON of GOD, changed to just "Jesus", "I and my Father are ONE", "God was Pierced for our transgressions" etc.

Gender Inclusive - (Changing MAN or MEN to People/Person/One) this is most often noted in the Greek because of certain wordings of nouns being Masculine or Feminine, ie: ANGELS is ALWAYS Masculine, NEVER Feminine.

Missing Words Verses - Some Verses are left out entirely. the NEW version of the ESV is 500+ words shorter than the 2007 version, this is even shorter than the RSV it was translated from.

If a translation "leaves out" verses or "changes" names of God or Christ, it's not because the team behind it is a big bunch of closet Satanists and atheists who want to see the Bible discredited and watered down. It's because there are different Greek manuscripts used in the translation process. KJV and NKJV use the Textus Receptus. NIV, ESV, NASB, and most other new translations use the Majority Text, which is, arguably, more accurate. So when a verse like 1 John 5:7 is missing (it is almost always in a footnote, however), it's not because the translators don't believe in the Trinity (as many people, like the man behind jesus-is-savior.com would have you believe), but it's because that verse didn't appear in NT manuscripts until quite late, according to manuscript standards. Therefore, the idea is not to include anything in the Bible that wasn't intended to be there. Jesus says that we are not to add or take away from His Word.

But, you say, the new translations have taken away from the Bible! Yes, the new translations do not include verses that can be found in the KJV and NKJV (among others), but that's because, like I said, they don't want to include anything that may not originally have been there. You see, there's nothing devious going on. The people behind these translations are good scholars who know what they're doing. They're way smarter than you or I. I trust their judgment.

Now, the gender-inclusive issue is a little different. I don't particularly like it myself, but I can understand the philosophy behind it. Many translations choose to go the route of "thought-for-thought" translation, instead of "word-for-word." So when they come across a word like "forefathers" or "mankind," they understand that the meaning behind those words are "ancestors" and "humans," respectively. So that's how they translate them. Now, I do think there may be a bit of an agenda about not offending feminists and others who don't like the idea of male headship, so I don't really agree with that aspect, but I still think it's a valid translation choice for dynamic translations such as those.

_________________"Jesus is far greater a Savior than you are a sinner." — Steve Camp"The Christian life is not a piece of heaven on earth, / but bless God! we get the peace of heaven on earth! / ... Some say God doesn't want you to suffer, but where they saw that?/ We don't pray for a lighter cross, but a stronger back!" — KB, "Brand New""When you heard a story 'bout da Hero dying for da villain?" — Andy Mineo, "One Sixteen"

I use the NIV most of the time... mainly because that is the bible that I personally own (though my family has about 10 different versions) I find it easy to read, and not overly simplified. If there is something I am really curious about I will look it up in KJV and several other versions, and see what they all have to say. When I had to read long boring passages for pathfinders a few years back I read them out of the message, because it was easier to read when I was younger.

The Top Crusader wrote:

I don't think the KJV is horrendous but a lot of people hold it up as the gold standard, which annoys me and causes me to dislike it more than I probably should.

I love the ToO!To know that God is in control is one thing, but to believe that truth, to stand on that truth, to live by that truth is completely different.

Joined: Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:45 pm

Posts: 1171Gender:

Cash: 43.10 Bank: 800.00

If we really want to understand the Bible to it's fullest I think we all need to learn the Hebrew and Greek Bibles. There are so many words that have such a unique meaning it's just hard to translate it into English and gain a full understanding of it (i.e. the word for "self-control" or "temperance" is commonly misunderstood . . . but that's for another topic at another time).

I do think KJV is a very good translation, and I think people miss much when they don't ever use that version. And I do think that some of the modern English translations are a little off, but I think there are some good ones too, such as NASB and ESV -- both pretty literal translations. One thing that is commonly misunderstood about some of these more modern English translations is that The Bible is Not Like a Telephone Game.

One example that was brought to my attention a while ago demonstrates what I would consider to show why modern English translations are also important for Bible study. Proverbs 29:18 says in KJV:

Where there is no vision, the people perish . . .

Often what we think of today when we read "vision" is that it is referring to creative brainstorming. Rather, it's talking more along the lines of (for example) when Peter had that vision to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:9-33). We might explain it better by calling it a "revelation." It's a linguistic problem. The verse isn't talking about creative thinkers, rather it's talking about Israel falling into sin because of ignoring what God revealed from His Word.

It may seem like I'm making a major deal out of nothing, but do you realize how many people quote that verse to back up whatever "good thing" they're doing when it may not be in the will of God? I'm not saying anyone's to blame (other than those who quote Scripture without examining the meaning first). What I am saying is that because our English language has changed since the 16th century I do see a good reason for modern English translations of the Bible to help us understand Scripture better (especially if you're like me in that you don't know Hebrew and Greek ).

Anyway, feel free to discuss if you disagree or whatever. Please know that I'm not intending to start debating this . . . honestly I'd rather avoid it. I have some friends who are big on one particular translation, and while I respect them for that, because I don't use only that version, I feel like there's some tension between us every now and then because they feel so strongly about it (really discouraging within the body of Christ). I'd really rather that not happen here.

I can't disagree with you if you never expand on your point. You must give reasons why KJV is better than the modern versions. Have we not been over this many, many, many times?

Q: How do you know me?Sometimes, I have little time to write...that is why I write so little. Also, I have the bad habit of writing one thing one time, and another thing another time.Because the KJV relies on better authority. The new versions are based on corrupt manuscripts such as Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (Aleph). In these manuscripts - there are many deletions, corrections, etc. - bad quality. Also, Aleph & B disagree more than they agree, while the Byzantine texts often speak out as one. The Majority Text agrees 85~95% with the TR. Yes, and also a good comparison of manuscripts and fathers (as John William Burgon has done) shows the TR better than the Wescott-Hort type text. Also, many variants were already known. Erasmus may not have had the most ancient manuscripts, but he did have the fathers which he made a diligent study of.

Now, I do not say the KJV is 100% perfect. I know a that it has defects. e.g. I believe that Luke 17:36 has to be omitted.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum